are we not in danger of confusing hunting for fun, hunting for food and controlling vermin?

Hunting for fun, e.g. my local Waterloo Cup for hare coursing is an object lesson in cultivating unnecessary suffering. All decent farmers make meat harvesting as painfree and sanitised as possible, I take my hat off to them.

Pheasant and grouse are, in my opinion, are a borderline between the two approaches, kept as grey as possible by the Waterloo Cup brigade. Having witnessed a shoot on the land adjacent to my allotment they are a bunch noisy ignorant crap shots out for fun.

Pheasants are so thick that trapping and dispatching them for the pot is simplicity itself. I think its called "poaching".

Those who think field sports is the preserve of the wealthy have a very narrow view and limited understanding of the sport.

Conversation relies, in part, on the activities of field sports which not only help enrichen biological diversity but also provide valuable revenues for many rural enterprises. By taking an emotional and onesided look at the whole debate serves no real purpose but I expect many who take a vitriolic stance against any form of field sport care not a jot about anything else except their own opinion.

It is a grey area, I don't see what's 'fun' about shooting, but neither do I about golf, but the former creates a more 'natural' habitat and the latter could be said to both protect and destroy it, as with any development. I'm sure ignorant, noisy people exist in both 'sports', as do quiet, knowledgeable types.

I don't think removing the fun element of shooting is ever going to work though. You can ban an action, but it's difficult to ban emotions.

I've alwAys found this a bit puzzling. People love to shoot thing and derive great pleasure from it. Even shooting each other. Very little of it involves maintains the countryside. Most is done digitally on sofas, Somw with paint balls. If you care so much about the countryside you would maintain it anyway or have to conclude that it's merely a byproduct of your fun shooting stuff not the main driver and it's the shooting you really like and if it was banned tomorrow you'd walk away and not give a stuff about biodiversity etc or wail that somebody somewhere must do something. For the record I've no issue with shooting game.

I've alwAys found this a bit puzzling. People love to shoot thing and derive great pleasure from it. Even shooting each other. Very little of it involves maintains the countryside. Most is done digitally on sofas, Somw with paint balls. If you care so much about the countryside you would maintain it anyway or have to conclude that it's merely a byproduct of your fun shooting stuff not the main driver and it's the shooting you really like and if it was banned tomorrow you'd walk away and not give a stuff about biodiversity etc or wail that somebody somewhere must do something. For the record I've no issue with shooting game.

That's describes a very small group of shooters. Shooting in the country has everything to do with conservation/biodiversity as without it it has no future. I don't shoot animals as it doesn't interest me but I am a member of BASC whose web site is a wealth of information on this subject.

Those who think field sports is the preserve of the wealthy have a very narrow view and limited understanding of the sport.

Conversation relies, in part, on the activities of field sports which not only help enrichen biological diversity but also provide valuable revenues for many rural enterprises. By taking an emotional and onesided look at the whole debate serves no real purpose but I expect many who take a vitriolic stance against any form of field sport care not a jot about anything else except their own opinion.

OK! Add to "wealthy", nouveau riche, or anybody who isn't an actual creative type who has a cue about ecology. So, with 1,000s of acres of uplands, massive potential for productivity, or simply to create fresh air and water, some of us refer to charge over it in RangeRovers, run around in Barbour Jackets and shoot everything that moves. Gosh, that's delayed climate change by a 100 years!!!